Developments in UK insolvency by Michelle Butler

Tag Archives: administrators

As the deadline for the Call for Evidence comes to a close, do we have any hint of what might come of it? Can we grab this opportunity to rescue the rescue process?

Rob Haynes, in ICAEW’s economia, summarises the key issue perfectly: how does government expect IPs (and insolvent businesses pre-appointment) to meet the statutory employee consultation burdens when they must act in the best interests of creditors? Haynes’ article ends depressingly with thoughts that the EU might influence the protection pendulum to swing even further towards employees.

As I haven’t worked on the front-line for several years, I confess that my point of view is fairly theoretic. But if we are to persuade government to make the legislation work better for this country’s insolvencies, we need to respond to the Call and I would urge those of you with current experience to put pen to paper, please?

The Insolvency Service’s Call for Evidence, “Collective Redundancy Consultation for Employers Facing Insolvency”, which closes on 12 June, can be found at: https://goo.gl/PW2AOa.

As you know, this is all about the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”), which requires employers to consult with employee representatives where they are proposing to make redundant 20 or more employees at an establishment.

Personally, I’ve always wondered what government hopes the employee consultation requirements will achieve, especially in insolvency situations. The foreword to the Call states:

“The intention of this legislation is to ensure that unnecessary redundancies are avoided and to mitigate the effects of redundancies where they do unfortunately need to occur.”

Setting aside for now the realities of whether this can be achieved, if this is the intention, why does TULRCA tie in only establishments where 20 or more redundancies are proposed? Aren’t these intentions just as valid for smaller businesses? Does this threshold seek to recognise micro-businesses? Maybe, although it also lets off large businesses where a relatively small number of redundancies are proposed, which bearing in mind the intention seems illogical to me.

Assuming that the threshold is intended to avoid micro-businesses carrying the cost burden of complying with consultation requirements, then this does seem to acknowledge that, in some cases, the cost to the employer is a step too far.

But who carries the cost burden in insolvency situations? At present, the NI Fund. If the government were to act on calls to elevate the priority of these claims, it would impact on the recoveries of creditors, or perhaps even the Administrators’ pockets if it were made an Administration expense. Would that persuade insolvent companies/IPs to continue trading in order to consult, even if there were no realistic alternative to redundancy? Even if trading-on were possible, it still doesn’t make it right to continue trading at a loss simply to meet the consultation requirements.

And would a change in protective award priority achieve the intention described above? Would it avoid unnecessary redundancies or result in more redundancies, as IPs run shy of taking appointments where their options boil down to: achieve a going concern sale with most of the employees intact (but we’d rather you didn’t do a pre-pack to a connected party without an independent review) or you don’t get paid at all? And where does this leave the skills of IPs to effect rescue and restructuring strategies?

City Link Stokes the Fire

The House of Commons’ Committees’ report, “Impact of the closure of City Link on Employment”, just pre-dated the Service’s Call for Evidence. Although the subject had been bubbling away for many years, this case may have been the light on the blue touch paper leading to the Call.

The report – at http://goo.gl/BNx5MH – covers much more ground than just TULRCA, but here are some quotes on this subject:

“It is clearly in the financial interest of a company to break the law and dispense with the statutory redundancy consultation period if the fine for doing so is less than the cost of continuing to trade for the consultation period and this fine is paid by the taxpayer…

“We are greatly concerned that the existing system incentivises companies to break the law on consultation with employees.”

These reflect comments by the RMT (City Link went into Administration on 24 December):

“They… were preparing contingency plans from November. Surely at that point they should either have made the thing public, in which case it would have given more prospective buyers time to come forward, or at least given the Government bodies and the union time to consult properly with their members and represent their interests. None of this was done.”

“they deliberately flouted that [the consultation period]. They can do that, because you and I as taxpayers pick up the tab for the Insolvency Service. It is absolutely disgraceful.”

But Jon Moulton’s comment was:

“The purpose of the consultation period was consultation. These are circumstances where no consultation is reasonably possible.”

Fortunately, the Committees acknowledged the position of Administrators:

“Once a company has gone into administration, it is likely to be the case that they will be, or will be about to become, insolvent and the administrator will not have the option to allow the company to continue to trade for the consultation period.”

The Committees’ conclusion was:

“When considering the consultation period in relation to a redundancy, company directors may feel they have competing duties. We recommend that the Government review and clarify the requirements for consultation on redundancies during an administration so that employees understand what they can expect and company directors and insolvency professionals have a clear understanding of their responsibility to employees.”

Does this conclusion suggest that the Committees were swayed by the RMT’s argument, that, although directors may feel they have competing duties, in fact their duties are aligned as there may be advantages in coming out with the news earlier? The Committees also seem to be questioning IPs’ levels of understanding of their responsibility to employees. Although they seem to recognise an Administrator’s limited options, they also believe that the system incentivises curtailed consultation, rather than seeing it as entirely impractical.

I hope that sufficient responses to the Call for Evidence address these misconceptions. If they don’t, responses in the vein of the RMT’s comments may monopolise ministers’ ears.

The Call’s Questions

Here are some of the more spicy questions in the Call for Evidence:

How does meaningful consultation with a ‘view to reaching agreement’ work in practice?

What do you understand to be the benefits of consultation and notification where an employer is facing, or has become insolvent?

In practice, what role do employees and employee representatives play in considering options to rescue the business and to help reduce and mitigate the impact of redundancies?

What factors, where present, act as inhibitors to starting consultation or notifying the Secretary when an employer is imminently facing, or has moved into an insolvency process?

What factors, where present, negatively impact upon the quality and effectiveness of consultation when an employer is facing insolvency, or has become insolvent?

Are advisors (accountants, HR professionals, or where an insolvency practitioner is acting as an advisor pre-insolvency) informing directors of their need to start consultation when there is the prospect of collective redundancies? How do directors respond to such advice?

Are directors facing insolvency starting consultation, and notifying the Secretary of State, as soon as collective redundancies are proposed and at the latest when they first make contact with an insolvency practitioner? If not, how can this be encouraged?

Normally are employee representatives already in place? What are the practicalities of appointing employee representatives when no trade union representation is in place?

The current sanctions against employers who fail to consult take the form of Protective Awards. Do you think these are proportionate, effective and dissuasive in the context of employers who are imminently facing, or have become insolvent? Is the situation different as it applies to directors and insolvency practitioners respectively?

As this is a Call for Evidence, the Insolvency Service is looking for examples and experiences, even when they are asking for an opinion. I am sure that many IPs and others in the profession can report a host of examples illustrating powerfully the realities and justifiable strategies in trying to make the most of an insolvent business, demonstrating that efforts to avoid redundancies certainly do feature highly in IPs’ minds.

Banks have become the 21st century pariahs. It seems that they can do nothing right and they cannot afford to do anything wrong. Lawrence Tomlinson may have banks, and RBS in particular, sighted in his cross-hairs, but is there much in his report that should concern the IP regulators or may herald changes for IPs?

A large part of the report raises issues regarding companies’ routes into the RBS’ Global Restructuring Group and how, once there, companies find it almost impossible to escape it alive. IPs become wrapped into this argument via Tomlinson’s observations over the opaque nature of the Independent Business Review process: the bank selects the IP and usually only the bank sees the report. When you add to this the fact that the cost of the IBR is passed to the company, I can see how this may rankle, although I am not sure that this makes the whole process flawed.

Tomlinson raises the issue of conflict of interest: he states that “it is easy to see how these reports may be used to protect the bank’s interests at the expense of the business. Much of the high value work received by these firms comes from the banks so it is naturally in their interest to protect the bank’s financial position”. Inevitably, the work of the IBR IP is fraught – can they really act independently? But who really is expecting them to do so? The IP’s client is the bank, not the company, so, at a time when the bank’s and the company’s interests cease to be aligned, it would seem to me to be foolish to assume that the IP introduced by the bank is not advising first and foremost the bank on how to protect its interests. If the company wants its own advice, then it should instruct its own IP. Of course some do, although Tomlinson fails to mention the barriers to some companies and their instructed IPs working to find a solution acceptable to the bank.

The appointment of administrators

Tomlinson writes that there are many occasions when the IBR IP later is appointed administrator. This seems to be a general comment rather than RBS-targeted, which might have been difficult to make stack up, as I understand that it is RBS’ policy not to appoint the IBR IP as administrator, is it not?

It is also not clear whether the cases involving directors who feel mistreated by the banks are the same cases in which the IBR IP later became the administrator. I think this is important because, on its own, an IBR IP becoming administrator is not an heinous act. On the other hand, if we take one of Tomlinson’s worst case scenarios, where a business was only considered insolvent because of a property revaluation, the directors were frozen out of any opportunity to offer solutions, and they protested that the IBR leading to the bank’s decision to appoint an administrator was flawed, then one might expect the IP to decline the appointment.

The Insolvency Code of Ethics states: “Where such an investigation was conducted at the request of, or at the instigation of, a secured creditor who then requests an Insolvency Practitioner to accept an insolvency appointment as an administrator or administrative receiver, the Insolvency Practitioner should satisfy himself that the company, acting by its board of directors, does not object to him taking such an insolvency appointment. If the secured creditor does not give prior warning of the insolvency appointment to the company or if such warning is given and the company objects but the secured creditor still wishes to appoint the Insolvency Practitioner, he should consider whether the circumstances give rise to an unacceptable threat to compliance with the fundamental principles.” If an IP still decides to accept the appointment amidst protestations, clearly he should be prepared to encounter a complaint and perhaps worse.

Tomlinson makes the point that “once an administrator has been appointed, the directors lose their right to legal redress”. Whilst directors lose their management powers and the administrator acquires the power to bring any legal proceedings on behalf of the company – and I should point out that I’m not a solicitor – there is precedent for directors to take some actions, e.g. challenging the validity of the administrator’s appointment, as demonstrated in Closegate (http://wp.me/p2FU2Z-4I). Challenges may also be made to court by shareholders (or creditors) (Paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986) and courts can order the removal of administrators (Paragraph 88). Of course, these measures cost money and probably will not reverse any damage done.

The IP’s role: post-appointment

More to the point, I think, is the risk of conflict of interest for bank panel IPs generally. Tomlinson puts it this way: “The relationship between the bank, IPs, valuers and receivers should undergo careful analysis. The interdependency of these businesses on banks for generating custom establishes a natural loyalty and bend towards the interests of the banks. Often the bank recommends or instructs the IP directly, so their preferential treatment is critical to their clientele. Maintaining independence and a fair hand for all parties involved appears extremely difficult.”

We’ve seen this argument play out in the pre-pack arena: if directors are in control of appointing an IP as administrator, how can creditors be confident that the IP, on appointment, will be acting with due regard for their interests? Similarly, how can other stakeholders be confident that an IP will not be persuaded by this “natural loyalty” towards the bank controlling their appointment to act contrary to his duties as administrator? In a number of cases, I would suggest that it is academic: if the bank is the only party with any real interest – or it shares that with the unsecured creditors looking to a prescribed part – then any bias towards the bank will achieve the same result as if there were none… although this may overlook the first objective of an administration, which is to rescue the company as a going concern.

Tomlinson is right: maintaining the IP’s balance here is extremely difficult, although I would be inclined to take receivers out of the equation, as there is no real change of “hat” for IPs in those cases. Until now, we have depended on the professionalism of the parties and the legal and regulatory processes to wield a stick towards any who stray, but I guess that we live in an age when that is no longer seen as adequate.

Tomlinson highlights another risk of conflict of interest in relation to selling assets: “RBS is in a particularly precarious position given its West Registrar commercial portfolio under which it can make huge profits from the cheap purchase of assets from ‘distressed’ businesses… Others have stated that they believe their property was purposefully undervalued in order for the business to be distressed, enabling West Registrar to buy assets at a discount price.” This is a new one on me and I’m not aware of any other bank being in a similarly “precarious position”. Although I would have thought that there would be little criticism levelled against IPs selling to West Registrar where it represents the best deal – and Tomlinson does not appear to be suggesting transactions at an undervalue by administrators – as we all know, there is a risk of getting caught up in allegations of stitch-ups wherever there is a connected party sale, whether that involves a director’s purchase in a pre-pack or a party connected to an appointing creditor.

The Repercussions

The most IP-relevant solution suggested by Tomlinson is:

“It is also important that the wider potential conflicts of interest between the banks, IBRs, valuers, administrators, insolvency practitioners and receivers are given careful consideration. Where these conflicts occur, it does so at the expense of the business. If collusion did not happen between these parties and their relationships were more transparent, then better fairness between the parties could be ensured. This requires further investigation and consideration by the Government to ensure that the law is being upheld and these conflicts do not impact on the businesses ability to operate.”

As mentioned previously, the Insolvency Code of Ethics covers specifically the scenario of an IP carrying out an IBR then contemplating an insolvency appointment. Personally, I think it does this rather well – it addresses not only how to view an objection by the directors, but also how the IP has acted prior to the insolvency appointment, how he has interacted with the company, whether he made clear who his client was etc. However, there is no ultimate ban on the IP accepting the appointment; as with most ethical issues, it is left to the IP to consider whether the threats can be managed or they render his appointment inappropriate. I would not be surprised if, down the line, there were a call for there to be a ban that an IBR IP could not be appointed as administrator. If it were a legislative measure, we could have fun and games defining such items as what constitutes IBR work and for how long a subsequent appointment would be prohibited, but it could be done.

But would it have the desired effect? It would certainly increase the costs of some administrations, as the built-up knowledge and in many respects positive relationships of the IBR IP would be lost to the administrator. It might also have limited effect, as the “natural loyalty” could persist in any IP who has the prospect of more than one bank appointment, be it a case on which he carried out an IBR or a case on which he’d had no prior connection. I believe it is a natural tendency in all professions and trades to protect one’s clients and work sources and I do not believe it is something that can be avoided entirely.

As with pre-packs, I would prefer the solution to involve those who feel mistreated doing something about it, calling to account anyone who acted contrary to their duties, ethical or otherwise. As with pre-packs, however, the devil is in establishing a clear understanding of what is and what is not acceptable behaviour, rather than simply trusting a gut feeling. Tomlinson has aired a few relevant issues, but also some irrelevant ones, I think, which unfortunately cloud the picture.

But is anyone listening? The FT reported yesterday (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/550c5360-5c31-11e3-931e-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2mVVnGjFz) that George Osborne has washed his hands of the report, although Mr Cable seems more convinced that there are genuine problems. However, whatever the conclusions of the FCA’s skilled person’s review, I am sure that insolvency regulators already are contemplating their next step. Some will see the Tomlinson report as an opportunity to renew calls for the end to bank panels of IPs. With a revision of the Insolvency Code of Ethics moving up the agenda of the Joint Insolvency Committee, I can see the ethics of the move from pre-appointment work to a subsequent appointment again being the subject of debate.

My thanks to Mr Cable for re-appearing in the headlines and making this two month old consultation suddenly seem current again. The proposal in his “Transparency & Trust” paper that got everyone talking was the attempt to curb future excesses of the banks and demand by legislation that their directors take care to be socially responsible, but is there anything in the paper for IPs..?

I’ve been doing a bit of work recently on compliance with the Money Laundering Regs and it has reminded me of the rigmarole around identifying, and verifying the identities of, an insolvent company’s beneficial owners. Identifying the >25% shareholders is the easy bit (although, of course, it gets a bit more complicated where the shareholders are corporate entities), but how, on day minus-one of an insolvency appointment, are you supposed to identify other beneficial owners, those who “otherwise exercise control over the management of the company”? People don’t often stand up and introduce themselves as shadow directors. The consultation describes other complications to identifying the beneficial owners, such as where a number of shareholders have agreed to act in concert.

BIS’ suggested solution: let’s make it a requirement for companies to disclose their beneficial owners. The consultation considers the details of such a system: when companies would be required to make such disclosure; to which companies it would apply; what about trusts; what powers would need to be granted and to whom to ensure compliance; whether such a registry would be publicly available or restricted only to law enforcement and tax authorities… but what I cannot help asking myself is: if a company is being misused for illegal purposes by some hidden beneficial owner, would the company really have complied with the legislation and disclosed him/her? Or is it more likely that such requirements would just put more burden on law-abiding companies in ensuring that their registers of beneficial owners, in which no one is really interested (the information only really has any value if money laundering has taken place, doesn’t it?), are kept up-to-date?

Although, personally, I cannot see such a system doing anything much to help prevent illegal activity, at least if IPs are able to see information on companies’ beneficial owners, it might help in their Anti-Money Laundering checks, and I think that anything that helps with that chore would be a bonus. So how likely is it that the information would be made public? It seems from the consultation that it is the Government’s preference and, even if that doesn’t happen, the second option is that it might be accessible to “regulated entities”, i.e. anyone who is required to make MLR checks.

There’s a sting in the tail, however. Slipped into the consultation is: “If they were given access to the registry, regulated entities would incur additional costs if they were required to check and report any inconsistencies between their own data and that held on the register” (paragraph 2.74). Can you imagine? Would they seriously require office holders to inform whoever that a defunct company’s register of beneficial owners was not up to date? My perception is that IPs do not really feature as a separate group in the minds of those who oversee the MLR, so I doubt that they would see the pointlessness of such a task.

Changing Directors’ Duties

Okay, this proposal won’t directly affect IPs, but I couldn’t help passing a quick comment. As no doubt you’ve heard, the proposal is to amend the directors’ duties in the CA06 “to create a primary duty to promote financial stability over the interests of shareholders” (page 61). It is noticeable that more consultation space is taken up listing the potential drawbacks of the proposal than its advantages. In addition to the described issues of how to enforce such a duty, how shareholders would react, how UK corporate banks would fare competing against banks not caught by the CA06, I was wondering how you could measure promoting financial stability: it seems to me that it would depend on whether you were to ask Vince Cable or George Osborne.

The consultation includes many other proposals, which would affect the disqualification regime – some of these are:

• whether the regime should be tougher on directors where vulnerable people have suffered loss (is the absence of a jubilant Christmas for a Farepak customer a more worthy cause than that for a redundant employee who’d worked hard up to the end of an insolvent company’s life?)
• whether the courts should take greater account of previous failures, even if no action has been taken on them (surely the just and socially-responsible solution would be to fund the Service adequately to tackle any misconduct of the first failure?)
• whether to extend the time limit for disqualification proceedings from two to five years (what about the Service’s method of prioritising cases? I appreciate that this is a gross simplification, but don’t they hold a big pile of potentials and progress those that they feel are in the public’s greatest interest, leaving the rest in the pile until it gets to the critical time when they have to make a decision one way or the other? Won’t the extension to five years simply mean that their potential pile holds four years’ worth of cases, rather than one year’s? Again, unless the Service is granted more resources, I cannot see that this measure would really help. I also object to the consultation’s comment that “it can quite easily be several months before the relevant insolvency practitioner reports to the Secretary of State detailing the areas of misconduct that may require investigation. In such cases, the limitation period might mean that misconduct is not addressed” (paragraph 12.2))
• whether “sectoral regulators”, such as the Pensions Regulator, FCA and PRA, should be granted the ability to ban people from acting as a director in any sector.
• whether directors who had been convicted/restricted/disqualified overseas should be prevented from being a director in the UK.

“Improving Financial Redress for Creditors”

The Government anticipates that, if liquidators and administrators (as the Red Tape Challenge outcome proposes to extend the power to take S213/4 actions to administrators) were entitled to sell or assign fraudulent and wrongful trading actions, a market for them would develop. Do you think so..?

BIS has thought about the possibility that directors (or someone connected to them) might bid for the action and, although they suggest an, albeit not water-tight, safeguard, they also point out that, if the director did buy the right of action, at least the estate would benefit from the sale consideration. Although, personally, I’d feel uncomfortable with that – and I’m not sure what the creditors would say (but, of course, the office holder could ask them, and maybe that would be a better safeguard?) – I guess it makes commercial sense.

The consultation also proposes to give the court the power to make a compensatory award against a director at the time it makes a disqualification order. The consultation states: “This measure could potentially affect the timeliness of obtaining disqualifications if it deterred directors from offering a disqualification undertaking and therefore resulted in more disqualification cases needing to be taken to court” (paragraph 11.16), but personally, I would have thought that this measure would increase exponentially the number of director undertakings, as there seems to be no suggestion that an undertaking would expose a director to the risk of an award.

It is envisaged that the award would not be used to cover the general expenses of the liquidation and “there is a question as to who should benefit from any compensatory award. This could be creditors generally or it could be left to the court to determine based on the facts of the case” (paragraph 11.14), although I assume that, if it were for the general body of creditors, the office holder would be expected to pay the dividend. I wonder how the office holder’s fees and costs would be viewed, if he had to keep the case open purely for the purposes of seeing through the outcome of any such action.

The consultation also states that “Liquidators would still be expected to consider whether there are any actions they could bring themselves, as they ought to now” (paragraph 11.15). Could liquidators be criticised for taking actions, the proceeds of which would settle first their costs, when, if it were left to the court on the back of a disqualification order, the creditors would see the full amount? It is a liquidator’s function to get in and realise the assets, so probably not, but administrators..?

The same paragraph states: “If by the time the disqualification action comes before the court, liquidators have successfully recovered monies from the directors, that is something the court would be expected to take into account when deciding whether or not to make a compensatory award (or in setting the amount of it)” – it could get fun if the actions were running in parallel.

.
Despite my quibbles, generally I think the proposals are a step in the right direction. However, I wonder how those in the Service’s Intelligence and Enforcement Directorate feel about the proposals, which would lead to so much more work and high expectations laid upon them. Let’s hope that these proposals give them a sound case for increasing their access to funds and people.